Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) and misapprehension of legal principles (with respect to the portion of the crime which was not committed) did not intend to repay the above borrowed amount to the Defendant at the time of borrowing a total of KRW 33 million from April 5, 2010 to August 5, 2011 by the victim J.

Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the above part of the facts charged, and the judgment of the first instance contains errors by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The first deliberation type of punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) that is unfair as it is too unhued.

B. On November 15, 2016, the Defendant and his defense counsel provided a sufficient security to the victim D with regard to the fraud of the victim D through a statement explaining the grounds for appeal. As such, the Defendant and his defense counsel provided a little deceptive act in order to obtain a grace period.

Even if fraud is not established, fraud is not established.

The author argues that the victim J did not have any criminal intent to acquire 197,500,000 won from August 2012 to June 2013 as well as to acquire 197,50,000 won.

However, the above argument can not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is newly raised after the submission period for the reasons for appeal.

Even if we examine ex officio the evidence submitted by the defendant, it is difficult to view that the visibility offered by the defendant as security and the market price of the motor vehicle reaches approximately KRW 279 million, as alleged by the defendant, even though considering the evidence presented by the defendant in the trial, and that each of the above frauds against the victim D and J is justified in the first instance judgment rejecting the defendant's assertion as to the above frauds in the victim D and J, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The first deliberation type is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.